CommunityPam's House Blend

NYT's Brooks: Dems are scared of the netroots

David Brooks also seems to have some sort of sorry professional complex (akin to having a small pee-pee complex) about the rise of the netroots and a that fear its influence may eclipse old media when it comes to politics. How else can you explain his sad defense of Holy Joe as a “victim” of the netroots, and the inside baseball alerting of the public that establishment Dems are quaking in fear of teeing off the blogosphere? I sense way too much projection here. (via Raw Story):

To Brooks, Lieberman represents one of a few “heterodox politicians who distrust ideological purity, who rebel against movement groupthink, who believe in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity,” offering former Mayor Giuliani and Senators McCain and Clinton as examples.

…”I can’t reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the Internet, because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers’ psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate,” Brooks adds.

…”Over the past few years, polarizers have dominated Congress because people who actually represent most Americans have been too timid or intellectually vacuous to stand up,” writes Brooks. “Even today many Democrats who privately despise the netroots lie low, hoping the anger won’t be directed at them.”

Raw references an earlier Brooks column as well, where he blasts Kos as The Keyboard Kingpin who “commands his followers, who come across like squadrons of rabid lambs, to unleash their venom on those who stand in the way.” How is the blogosphere any more influential (or damaging) than old media at shaping politics? Do you sense a whiny media baby here?

It is quite amusing that Brooks is lobbing bombs out there on behalf of the apparently scared sh*tless Dems who are worried about being slammed by the netroots for supporting faux Dem Rape Gurney Joe.

“Because in my conversations –we’re talking about the netsroots [sic], who are the real problems for Lieberman, people generated by the Daily Kos and other web sites– I find privately most of the Democrats despise those people because of the way they practice politics so viciously that they don’t want to get in the crosshairs,” said Brooks, according to a transcript in a Daily Kos diary.

lieberman-bush.jpg
Graphic: Russ.

Brooks goes on to mention the heat (justified heat, IMHO) that Barbara Boxer and Joe Biden received for stumping for Holy Joe. MBNA “bankruptcy bill” Biden isn’t even worth the time of day, but reproductive freedom advocate Boxer has no business standing up there for Lieberman (who said that hospitals should be able refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for “principled reasons,” even if they receive public funds). What dirt must Joe have on her?

Brooks is so off-base — calling out a politician who has sidled up to this administration on so many issues, and who has announced that he’ll attempt an Independent effort if he loses his primary to a more progressive Dem is hardly “a liberal inquisition.”

Jane at Firedoglake reports that Maxine Waters (chair of the “Out of Iraq” caucus) has announced that she’ll campaign for Ned Lamont, countering Brooks’s assertion that this “inquisition” is driven only by “the highly educated, highly affluent, highly Caucasian wing of the Democratic Party” turning on Holy Joe to “purge a battle-scarred warhorse on the grounds of insufficient moral purity.” God, Brooks is insufferable.

Also:
* DSCC to Holy Joe: you’re on your own
* Holy Joe collecting signatures for independent campaign
* Holy Joe vs. Ned Lamont on LGBT rights
* Holy Joe: Bombs away on Iran
* Holy Joe on-air meltdown
* Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Holy Joe has got to go!

Previous post

Sunday Talking Head Thread

Next post

Novakula: Rudy's in

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding